egebamyasi

Alex, me too. But for kidney pain. At 26? Yeah, at 26 damn it!

I opened that forum out of curiosity, to see people’s reactions. The 80s are often associated with trash. This prejudice is somewhat not entirely wrong. The 90s are clearly superior in terms of quality. Think, regarding venues, that about a month ago I had the brilliant idea of bringing all post-rock music to open the show. Result? After two songs, the owner came over and told me to change genre immediately! But how much fun I had watching his face! The beauty of the 80s (and in all music in general) is the philological work that can be done. Discovering that a certain type of approach, of sound, had already been, consciously or unconsciously, anticipated back then. It’s something that at least personally gives me a lot of satisfaction. Because it helps to broaden horizons, create connections, and better outline references. Speaking of good music. If you like electronics, spend some time on the first OMD album, yes, the ones who did Enola Gay, it’s a really beautiful record, icy, with a gorgeous synth sound, a bit raw, but its charm lies there too.

Sure, "Vienna" is definitely a standout. In this genre, they were the best. Try reading my review of "Warp" by New Musik. It's one of those famous "underground" records I mentioned earlier. It's not exactly the same as this, but at the time it was really "ahead of its time," even more than this.

Another thing Alex. Regarding "alternative" venues. I can assure you, and I speak from experience because I am a DJ, that there are really very few today. Sure, it would fit well, but for most people these sounds are "difficult." Now, I don't want to come off as a pretentious snob, but I assure you that in my CD collection I have records from the 80s that are much more "underground" than this, which isn't actually underground. Yet I play them through the walls of the venue because most people just don’t have the ears for it. Nowadays, venue owners don’t give a damn about the prestige a place can achieve due to the music it offers; they only want money, even if it means playing Povia. They don’t care. To add to this dismal landscape, the final blow is dealt by the rampant spread of Latin American dances, not harmful in themselves, but detrimental in the worst sense of the word, referring to the hodgepodge of tanned brutes and wiggling girls with an intellectual level close to zero that they attract.

Then: the history of the volume you are examining only pertains to a part of the final mixing, namely the recording level. Mixing, I think you know, involves the volume of individual instruments, the scene you want to create. Editing, or mastering, is another matter entirely. The CD you are considering, "Lament" by Ultravox, is definitely an old copy from Chrysalis Records that has been sitting in Italian warehouses for years. It is a twenty-year-old edition. A reissue from EMI GOLD came out in 1997, which in terms of sound is a whole other ball game, as it underwent a remastering process that improved it. But be careful: remastering doesn't always work miracles. If the record was poorly recorded back then, there’s much less that can be done during the reissue phase. Often, major labels pump up the dynamics to the max, and one is ready to exclaim: "Wow, it sounds amazing!" Nothing could be more wrong. Or they increase the level. Alex, don’t be impressed by the VOLUME, that's what I want to tell you. A record with a high recording level doesn't necessarily mean it has all the other parameters in place. By other parameters, I mean dynamics, transparency, distortion, and so on. It’s these parameters that determine the quality of a record's recording. In this regard, try listening to a record by the Blue Nile, a Scottish pop group formed in the 80s. "Hats," one of their albums from '89, which is very nice in its genre, has never been reissued; it’s 16 years old, but it outshines any remastered record from the major labels in the 2000s. Yet it’s OLD, with an unappealing booklet and a bare packaging. But IT SOUNDS GOOD.

Listen Alex, I like the way you get involved. You're enthusiastic; it's clear you love music. So: regarding the 5.1 sound, be careful. Retailers are selling fluff, and people, especially in a crummy society like today's, are laden with ignorance. Stereo sound is still the preferred method for music lovers when it comes to playback. Theoretically, a 5.1 setup would be superior, provided you're willing to spend a fortune on an excellent (and I repeat, excellent) Super Audio CD player, supported by quality speakers and appropriate components. But once you achieve that, where will you find the CDs to play? This format is significantly superior to the old CD (and I won't get into overly technical discussions) but the media are lacking. People today are all caught up in wanting "a lot in a little space," let alone whether they are willing to pay attention to the greater resolution that a SACD would offer. But beware, as long as it's a "great SACD," not one of those supermarket ones, because a well-tuned, affordable stereo setup can blow it away. Got it? So if you want advice, lean towards the stereo solution.

Alex, thank you for your appreciation. The fact is that I've had little time lately. Maybe during the Christmas holidays... Do you like new wave?

I read the whole discussion and after half an hour of reading, I summarize the debate: he is right, damn it.

It's true, Hal, that image is beautiful. I remember being struck the moment I heard those words. You're right, the gaze makes the difference.

geff industrial curse is the one that affects industrial cities. Try asking the mother of a friend of mine if it isn't a curse to lose a child at 25 on an assembly line, or the wife of a poor worker who died of cancer from inhaling asbestos. Go ahead, give it a shot, then let's see if you still feel like being a smartass.